Total posts: 12,563
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Yes, this is true, but not my society, every society does"
You concede that your society doesnt have kid's best interests in mind.
"If our society banned all these things, then it wouldn't be a free country now would it."
Do you want freedom or best interests? And no, you cant have both, as confirmed by your own sentence.
"First of all, who are you to say that I don't have kids' best interests as my main interest."
Why would I think that you have kid's best interests in mind? Just one line ago, you were justifying things that arent in kid's best interest.
"Again, you can't take away a kid's choice, when they don't have it in the first place"
You concede that children are property.
"This isn't even an argument because you are trying to get me to specify what best interests are."
Which you cannot do, because:
"There are different best interests"
"We can all agree that loving families are trying to improve their kids' lives"
So now we have moved from "best interests" to "loving"
This is what happens when you cannot define your own moral system.
"I'm talking about best interests as in doing things that can better any child's life not a specific one."
You defined best as something that improves life? But you already admitted that you dont want to improve life by banning junk food and cars, so you have some of your version of "improving" that has nothing to do with best intetests.
"Ok and?"
You concede that you cannot know who has your version of "best interests" in their mind. You concede that even you dont completely believe in best interests, making the system of best interests merely your excuse to use when you see fit and to discard when you see fit.
"most people want society to progress"
"put their best interests at heart"
At start, you conceded that society hurts kids.
Now you switch story again and say that society has best interests in mind.
Which is it?
"When did I ever say we need to use violence. I said discipline"
Do you approve the corporal punishment? Just answer, simple yes or no.
If yes, then answer this:
Does corporal punishment involve painful involuntary contact on someone's body?
A simple yes or no.
"YES. I totally agree with this statement. But not when it comes to kids, who DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN BODYS YET."
Since you conceded that children are property, why do you oppose to how people treat their property?
"Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I hadn't even said"
You clearly stated in this forum that children are property of their parents. Do you need to be reminded?
"You are taking the fact of a lot of people don't care about kids"
You are contradicting yourself. First you conceded that most people dont care about kids, then you changed your mind and said that most people do care, now you claim again that most people dont care about kids.
You changed your mind 3 times in one comment?
"and turning it into, no one cares about kids"
Do you care about kids and do you agree to ban cars and all the other things I listed as "kid's best interests"? Or do you not care about kid's best interests when it doesnt suit you, making your moral system inconsistent?
"You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone."
Lets proceed to your explanation.
"people don't intentionally feed their kids junk food just to hurt them"
Are you conceding that people dont know that junk food is harmful?
In that case, their lack of knowledge makes "best interests" unachivable.
If people do know that junk food is harmful and they care about kid's best interests, why do they give junk food to kids?
The answer is simple. You cant define best interests. Your system is a moral perversion where you sometimes care, sometimes dont. No one knows exactly what you mean when you say best interests, because your definition changes all the time.
Since you failed to define best interests, and failed to stick to your own definitions, we can safely say that you dont know what best interests are.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Where is the evidence? Random sites are evidence?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"you as the parent love your child, you don't want them to hurt themselves"
I was waiting for someone to make this mistake.
Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.
If you and your society had kid's best interests in mind, you would ban these things.
You are a denier of your own moral system.
What this proves is that you and your society do not have kid's best interests as your main interests. Society has its own interests that often conflict with child's best interests, proving that almost no one in your society will place greatest importance on kids.
Since you cannot guarantee that you have kid's best interests in mind when taking away their choice, it follows that you base your viewpoint on an assumption.
This makes your argument useless, since you based it on a fairy tale of a heroic individual who cares about others more than himself. The fact that you are not even able to identify such an individual in your society, let alone to give him the task of taking care of all children, proves that your entire argument relies upon an assumption that some random people you never even met are actually 100% good and caring.
You cant even explain what best interests are, because everyone has different version of best interests.
You didnt explain which individual in your society will place greatest importance on kid's interests.
If you cannot find such an individual, then your system of "best interests" is impossible to implement and remains only a dream that cannot be effectively realized.
How do you know who has kid's best interests in mind? Is it the government? The majority? Who?
You cant even prove that you have their best interests in mind.
People dont even agree on what best interests are. They keep changing opinions all the time.
And your counter argument was based on an even greater fairy tale of kids wanting to cut off their arms, which if true still wouldnt cause as much harm as you claim, since you didnt understand this line: "Parents can use punishments, but not coercion or violence".
The fact that you assume how you need to use violence to prevent a kid from cutting off his own arm shows that your thinking is limited to threats and violence.
Do you admit that you cannot raise kids without using violence?
The system of individuals owning their bodies works.
Why?
If others cant use my body without my will, then I have something in this world that is mine.
If a person has to be a property for his whole life, then a person has nothing. And your system, by making everyone under 18 a property, condemns everyone who lives less than 18 years to be a property their entire life.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"I've already laid them out."
Were they refuted like that time when you admitted that US wasnt first to develop an ICBM or jet fighter plane, and didnt develop the most powerful bomb? Or like that time when you lied about number of active troops?
"most of your "arguments" I can't argue against because they are complete lies"
Why do you assume that your arguments are not lies?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you oppose to the government taking away your choices when the government's justification is being your inability to comprehend important decisions?
You also reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you dont oppose to that same justification when it is used in case of young people?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things."
Read again:
"No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case."
"Yes, this is exactly my point."
So your point is that a definition is a justification? In that case, I use the definition of a government to justify whatever the government does.
"If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic."
Using the definition of something as its justification is circular logic, since conclusion is not derived from a premise, but rather the conclusion is the same as premise.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Where are your arguments?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"I am saying that there is a difference"
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case.
What justification can you use to take away choices from young people, but that the government cant use to take away choices from you?
"One is basic parenting"
So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
This is a definition, a very unclear definition.
Arguments were about justification of the two, not the definitions of the two.
You cant use definition of something as justification for it, since that is circular logic.
"and the other is adults telling adults what they can and can't do."
So government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?
More circular logic?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Oh, also this is you too"
There is plenty of me all over this site, yes. Whats your point? That I am not allowed to pretend to be God?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"You obviously didn't do any research for this given that this statement is completely wrong"
Bla bla bla so you disagree with your own commanders?
"if China had military superiority over the USA, which it doesn't, then yes, they probably would."
This is a pure assumption, since you assume China would be ready to obliterate US and half the planet and lose plenty of people for no benefit what so ever.
"that we wouldn't make the same thing if not something better."
So far:
Your ICBMs are smaller in size than North Korean ICBMs, shorter range than North Korean ICBMs.
15 years ago North Korea didnt even have an ICBM, now they have catched up to you and are further advancing at full speed.
"Soviet Union is gone through..."
Yes, its gone. But Russia inherited most of its advanced ICBM technology.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"You're comparing the right to vote with adults to parenting with children."
Is the comparison wrong, and why?
Both government and parenting are based upon choices being taken away because someone thinks he knows better than others.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
"their inability to comprehend adult intellect and situations"
Can government use the same logic and think that you have no ability to comprehend important decisions and situations?
You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Just because it has longer range, doesn't make it more advanced."
Longer range means it can strike targets at a greater distance.
Can you hit an enemy at a distance of 15000 km if you have missiles that only have 10000 km range?
While its true that at close range it makes no difference, at long range it does. So why was US unable to produce ICBM that has greater range than North Korean ICBMs?
"if Chinas were more advanced than they would have already taken over the U.S."
Do you think that if a country has military superiority over you, it will immediatelly declare nuclear war on you?
"They depend on satellites which are not easily jammed."
Even if satellites could track an ICBM, they are also easily rendered useless by nuclear explosion above the range of missile defense.
However, satellites can only track an ICBM while its using its engines. But when ICBM gains high altitude, it is impossible to shoot it down since missile defense systems have limited range and cannot go as high as ICBM.
After warheads detach from an ICBM, they are no longer visible to satellites but only to radars, assuming those arent jammed.
US commanders admitted that even under ideal circumstances, intercepting an ICBM would be very hard.
"In 1945, the United States of America created and tested the first nuclear bomb"
Yes, but I asked who made the most powerful bomb. That would be USSR and its Tsar bomb.
"We are too advanced."
Your ICBMs and nuclear missiles are lagging behind, and they are the main weapons in nuclear war.
Other countries are building up their nuclear arsenal and upgrading it.
Russia alone has over 700 ICBMs and is already working on even more powerful ones capable of changing directions making interception even harder.
USA only has 400 ICBMs.
Since your military budget was focused on stealth fighters and other nonsense, China was first to develop hypersonic missile and now has the upper hand.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"They are too immature."
Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.
So government uses your thinking.
Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.
Since you taught them that its okay to take away choices from others if you find them immature, it is really just a wonderful cycle closing in on your people.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you disagree with government taking away your choice?
But you agree that choices should be taken away from young people by using the same justification as the government does when taking choice away from you?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Then how did the Taliban not attack when the U.S. troops were in Afghanistan."
They did. They killed over 2000 US troops over the years, plus they killed plenty of local troops.
"China and especially North Korea doesn't have more advanced ICBM's"
You seem to have forgotten about comparison of minuteman to North Korean ICBM that has longer range.
Also, China has advantage in hypersonic missiles that can change directions to avoid defenses. China was first to use this technology.
"we have all of our tactical defense missiles"
Those depend on radars. Radars are easily jammed and rendered useless. In fact, just detonating 1 nuke in space above the reach of missile defenses would make radar systems useless for several minutes, allowing other nukes to pass undisturbed.
"The U.S. most definitely has weapons that others don't because we invent the weapons"
Did you invent ICBM? Did you invent jet fighter planes? Did you invent the most powerful bomb on earth?
Clearly, not all weapons were invented by US.
Hence, there is no reason to believe that other countries dont have some secret programs that could maybe cause great damage to US.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Our one mistake was that we didn't take out all of the Taliban."
You couldnt. You dont know where they are or who they are among civilians.
Its called guerilla tactical hit and run warfare.
Its really simple. You let the enemy take over most of your territory, then he has to defend it while you do surprise attacks out of nowhere and retreat, turning the war into infinite endless war.
"I think you will agree that now in this day and age, people are not of a big factor as it used to be"
People are important, otherwise you cannot occupy territory. You cant occupy anything with f 22 or bombers. You need troops on ground to occupy territories and defend them.
Troops are crucial to defense too.
Unless its a nuclear war. Then nothing can help you, since Russia, China and North Korea have better ICBMs.
"You really think the US government would show everyone its most powerful weapon?"
You are assuming that US has a weapon that others dont have. I dont see why you would make such an assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Most of the people dont seem to care about debt.
They keep electing politicians who promise to increase spending (increase debt).
Increasing debt always causes inflation.
I dont see the point of this debt economy, and I agree that its a scam.
It gives cheaper healthcare to the poor, but makes everything else in the country more expensive with mass inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
They still have time to save themselves if they decrease federal budget spending by at least 40%.
It would require the decrease of spending on either:
1) medicare and mediaid
2) social security
3) military.
What to choose out of these three is a painful choice, because whatever they choose will have bad consequences.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Can liars put effort into lying?
Do all liars stick to effortless lies?
While the low effort trolling can be fun for a short time, it eventually falls apart because angry people rip it to shreds.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you think that you can take away the choice from someone because you assume their choice is "harmful, incorrect, regretful"...
And why cant government use these same excuses to take away all of your choices?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I was joking. I even wrote on my profile page that I am a liar, but you still get offended...
We are living at times when people are so sensitive and weak. Back in my days, you could joke about almost anything and nobody cared.
Today, people get offended by EVERYTHING.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We dont know for sure. US has largest percentage of population in prison.
If you dont steal a poster, insult Kim, or do other stupid things, you would be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
"I don't know if it is possible that the money can be handed straight to the central government without being taken away parts by the lower levels"
Throughout history, many countries had the system of the central government and regional governments.
Regional governments had to pay fixed amount of tax to the central government.
Regional governments would collect taxes from their territories, and use it to sustain themselves and pay tax to the central government.
Central government would determine the exact amount of money that a regional government has to pay.
Also, central government would make public declaration about exact amount of money each citizen has to pay to the regional government.
This helped a lot with fighting corruption.
Regional governments who wouldnt pay the demanded sum of money would face penalty, removal from power, or maybe even death.
Now, in case of voluntary taxes, this would be hard to apply 600 years ago. This is simply because any regional government can lie about the amount of donated money. It would be very hard for the central government to figure out who is lying.
Central government could deny services to the regional governments who dont pay enough, and that could maybe work. Still, countries with mandatory taxes would have great advantage.
Today we have computers who can make list of everyone who donated and the list could be publicly available for anyone to see.
Created:
Posted in:
I would pay maybe 10%, maybe 20%. Depending on how well the government actually uses the money.
Created:
Posted in:
It is fun to think about, but military needs lots of money and I doubt that voluntary donations would be enough without some serious information campaign.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah, I dont see how is that much worse than sodomy and circumcision and US prisons filled with groups of huge black homosexuals wanting to mate with you.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
In today's world, military federation or confederation could be the best way to organize society.
USA is a federation, with somewhat decent military technology, but ultimately incompetent leadership.
Since leadership in USA is not military leadership, but rather the democratic leadership, its military has its priorities messed up.
This is why your government thought that war against Talibans(people who defeated Soviet Union) was a good idea.
This is why you spend more on healthcare than on military.
What has your government done?
First, they were unable to create large military. Only 1 million active troops out of 340 million population means less than 0.4 %, or 1 in 340.
So in fighting a global war, your military would only have 10 soldiers on 80000 people world wide. So, very vunerable to guerilla warfare.
Also, would be unable to mobilize more soldiers without causing mass inflation.
US was also unable to maintain nuclear superiority over other countries. Despite being the first to develop an atomic weapon, it was second to develop an ICBM (best way of delivering nuclear weapons).
They quickly fell behind with an amount of nuclear weapons.
After losing war against communist vietnam, the US went further to humiliate itself and lost war against stratocratic afganistan.
These humiliations didnt do any good to USA, but good thing is that masses have small brains and quickly forget things.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
"Any parent can tell you that what a child wants at age nine isn't what they wanted at eight"
You dont understand the basic principle of individual sovereignty.
It is not about fullfilling every desire an individual has.
If child wants money to buy an iphone, parents have no obligation to provide the money.
If child has money to buy an iphone, parents have no right to force a child not to buy.
They can only talk with a child, assuming child wants to talk, until child changes opinion without force or violation of sovereignty.
Individual sovereignty is not about "you deciding who has sovereignty". It is about "you realizing that everyone has sovereignty".
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Eat shit fag
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
" just because someone disagrees with you their choice doesn't mean they are going to do everything they can to take that choice away."
I had like 70% of my choices in life stolen from me, and here you are saying that people are not doing what they have been doing for 2000 years.
Nice delusions you got there.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You are trying to explain advanced logic here.
People only respect other person's choice if they agree with it. Otherwise, they do everything they can to take that choice away.
We live in a world where there is not so much of a "your body belongs to you" opinion, but there is a lot of "I think I am smarter than you, so I will make decisions about your body instead of you".
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Stop sending me debate requests, you retarded ape.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Enjoy the win, retard.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Stop sending me debate challenges you needy autistic retard.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"So, you have or haven't lived in the USA?"
Dummy, you dont need to live in USA for US education to reach you.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you."
I am crying right now because you dont love me anymore. Please come back. I need you.
"Show me any evidence to this argument you just posted."
You have google. Educate yourself, dummy. I am not paid to be your teacher. But I will mock you for free.
"And if you don't live in the USA, then what country do you live in"
Why? So that you can drone strike me?
"My goal was to try to change your thinking, but your ideology is so messed up that it is useless to debate against you."
Oh you have a goal? How very nice. Its so nice to have goals. I used to have goals, but then US sponsored education circumcised me :(((((((((((((
"If you were so certain you would beat me, then you would have accepted my debate, but no you declined because you know you would lose"
I never said I was certain that I would win. In fact, I clearly stated that I would certainly lose due to american voters voting for you. I dont see how are you so stupid that you werent able to understand my simple words. Whats certain is that I will beat you in a forum where there are no american voters to defend your vagina.
"At least I put down evidence and based my thinking in fact"
Yeah, like when you embarrassed yourself and claimed that US has 4 million active troops, or when you posted a link to video of a mentally retarded North Korean defector who makes videos about how Kim Jong Un is gay.
Yeah, real facts there. Please give me more of those facts.
"And you didn't embarrass me, you embarrassed yourself."
American autistic retard is roasting me so hard, omg I am burning, please stop.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"And if you really want to reply to this, let's just set up a debate so I can put the rest of my evidence on the table"
I have already rejected your challenge. I am pretty much satisfied with humiliating you here on this forum. Since here you dont have american voters to defend you and argue for you, you are at a disadvantage.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"America has more freedom than North Korea"
North Korea has 70 times more military per capita. So North Korea has outproduced your freedom.
"We have rights to firearms, which helps us protect ourselves"
Gun can protect against a nuke? No, son.
"why are you even living in America"
Why do you assume that I live in USA? Disgusting.
"North Korean's also don't have the freedom to express religious beliefs"
Freedom needs power. Those who have power have freedom. Citizens didnt earn their freedom, so they dont have it.
Power is the most important thing in the world. Without power, there is no freedom.
Those who have power will rule over those who dont have power.
You can cry about this all day. Its the truth.
Countries with most power are the best.
"America has more advances ICBM's than North Korea."
No. North Korean ICBMs can travel +15000 km. Compared to that, US minuteman can only travel 10000km. So thats 33% less. How embarrassing.
Even CNN, american propaganda media, admitted that North Korean missiles can travel over 15000 km.
Who invented ICBMs? USSR!
Are you going to deny your own media, dumb american?
"America has the most powerful military in the world"
Not by capita, and not by ICBMs.
North Korea has 70 times more trained soldiers per capita.
North Korea has more ICBMs per capita. Russia has more ICBMs per capita.
North Korea has 10 times more tanks per capita.
North Korea is under sanctions,much smaller country with much less recources, but still outproducing you?
North Korea with its nuclear strategic force is capable of wiping out half the US.
You literally have no way of stopping North Koreas missiles. In 60 minutes, half of US would be gone.
Your bomber stealth is useless as it is 10 times slower than ICBM.
But even then, even if it reached North Korea, you still wouldnt be able to destroy 7 million troops. Not to mention that South Korea and Japan would be wiped out.
"If our generals took full control, then those wars could have been done in weeks."
If. Since your system fails, there is no if.
"whole point of society, is to thrive and to get more advanced as time goes on"
No. The point is to get as much power as possible and dominate over the weak.
"Humans live and thrive off their morals."
No. Humans live and thrive from power. Unless you claim that starving children in Africa have no morals?
" If the government is focusing on controlling people, then they can't focus on building themselves up technologically and societally"
Wrong, dummy. If people are controlled, they can be directed to build military.
Entire point of military and government is to tax citizens to sustain itself and increase its power through robbing and investing more in military production by paying military producers more.
North Korean population grew faster than US and South Korean population.
North Korean military grew faster than US military.
The point is to be as powerful as possible. Taxing citizens, investing in military and controlling military allows that.
"People don't deserve to be oppressed and know their place, you would say all this online in America, but as soon as your oppressed and put in your place, then you will be begging to come back to the American ways."
This is you confusing lies with objective reality. It doesnt matter what I would say if I was oppressed.
If I am oppressed, I deserved it because I am weak. If I wasnt weak, I wouldnt be oppressed.
Only the weak ones are oppressed.
So of course the weak ones will say they dont deserve to be oppressed. Its logical to use lies to gain more power.
The point of government is to gain power.
Power is gained by making people obedient. Power is gained by ability to defend yourself and destroy your enemies, and realize your goals.
So the government makes weak people obedient, through force and ideological education, and dominates them to serve the government.
"So, you do want ideological driven education, or not."
I want for ideological education to serve my desires. Government wants ideological education to serve its desires.
It is not the question of if education should exist or not, rather who should it serve.
Again, you are confusing desires with state of reality.
"how are you going to have the future generation of people be smart and successful, if they are all being oppressed"
The point for them is to be successful in serving the government. Oppression helps with that.
Oppression doesnt make people dumber, as you falsely assumed.
There is still education and military work where skilled oned are rewarded more for producing new weapons.
This is why North Korea's and China's technology is advancing faster than anyone's elses.
"Not everyone has the same ideas and beliefs, so if there is more than one person in charge your so-called structured society, will fall apart."
If this was true, democracy would fall apart on day one.
Society in charge of multiple people where each has equal power is led by voting.
"Even with one person in charge, there will be a point where too many people don't agree and then it comes down to the people vs one person."
You said you base your argument on a TV show hunger games? Maybe I will base mine on North Korean movie "Nation and destiny".
Anyway, your argument is assuming that 1 person will always be stupid and unable to manipulate others.
Historically, your argument is wrong. Stalin ruled until he died. So did Mao. So did Kim Jong Il. So did Kim Il Sung.
So it is possible to have total power for the rest of your life if you know how.
The only proof for your argument is a made up TV show which you took as "more educational" than history itself.
Rule of 1 person is based upon observing society and learning how to control it.
If person fails at that, he deserves to be overthrown and replaced with one person who is more suitable.
Historically, monarchies lasted longer than democracies and were stronger than democracies.
Even today, more people live under dictatorship than democracy, and in military sense democracy was outmatched by China and USSR.
Democracy is failing to the point where people believe everything the media tells them. So really, your society is ruled by media.
Democracy in Ukraine was overthrown.
"Now don't just take this from me, look at the people who have actually lived in North Korea, escaped, and have told their story."
I dont care about their story. It is irrelevant to the power of North Korean government.
My ideas disgust you? Well, you can cry if you want. It wont decrease North Korea's power.
"You are basically showing your true colors by telling everyone that you're a psychopathic megalomaniac, who wants power and basically agrees with Hitler's ideology"
Everyone wants power. Power is everything in life. If you dont have power, you depend on mercy of others. This is a fact which you fail to understand.
"You are telling me all this, in the comfort of your own home and access to technology, and Americas freedom. If you've done anything in this forum, you've just proved my point in saying that people in America are using their privilege to complain about where they are living and wishing to live somewhere else."
I dont live in USA, THANK GOD.
It would be objectively better for me if I was born in North Korea, but sadly, I wasnt.
As we have proven, North Korea outproduced USA.
US governments only last 4-8 years, while North Korean government lasted for over 70 years. Thats 10 times more.
Also, your point was not "people are complaining". Your point was "people shouldnt complain", "people shouldnt desire to live somewhere else", and "USA is most successful".
It is sad that you are forgetting your own points. Maybe you have autism?
In your own words, you admitted that US government is failing:
"And I'm not saying Americas perfect or agreeing with what the government is doing right now. Most of the things that the government is doing now is horrible disgusting and is ruining America, like the push for the LGBTQ+ agenda, all the corruption and coverups, and the stupid economic decisions the Biden administration is making"
"I'm pointing out the flaws in your thinking"
No, you are pointing out the flaws in your thinking.
"Honestly, people like you scare me because to think that people like you can rise up to power is very terrifying"
So you admit that people who worship power can rise to power? So you basically admit that democracy is not secured.
One person will always thrive over others in society. Democracy limits that for a short time, yes. But in turn it makes country weaker in military.
Demise of democracy is inevitable, since individuals with power rule over the weak. Always.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The stated goals of Americans are
- to form a more perfect Union,
- establish Justice,
- insure domestic Tranquility,
- provide for the common defence,
- promote the general Welfare, and
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity
Unlike autocratic thinking, democrats aren't looking to centralize power but to only use power when necessary, controlled by a wide variety of competing interests
I puked a little in my mouth while reading that.
Its like I am reading Communist Manifestoo.
But I guess you believe in these sick perverted fairy tales written by Marxist movement.
The reason you are stupid is because you believe that majority of people make decisions based on reason.
Majority of people are incapable of telling difference between fact and fiction, as proven by religious movement, let alone run a country and make important decisions.
The best form of government is stratocracy combined with noocracy.
There is no point in giving people welfare, or right to vote.
Vote is a waste of resources.
Majority of the people misuse their power all the time. This is because they are stupid.
Also, they are easily controlled by the media.
Majority of the people always believe what media tells them. So really, your country is run by media, not by the people.
Your democracies are economically failing. China is outproducing you by far.
Democracies are also failing in military sense, where North Korea is outproducing you by far.
Its also a shame how your democracy lost a war against afganistant and vietnam... it seems people are more willing to fight for power than for your democracy.
Hitler was democratically elected and supported by majority?
How many democratic countries have strong military?
Where is this justice you speak of? In which country it is located?
Soviet Union was first to develop ICBMs and outproduced democracies in military.
What a shame. Total incompetence.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
US military is 1% of North Korea's military :(
North Korea has 70 times more military per capita than USA.
How embarassing for the USA :(
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You say that people can revolt? Maybe, but ideological education and largest military prevents that. Some of them could revolt, but we know what would happen to them.
There has never been a revolt in North Korea. Not during the war, not ever.
People should only be given a little power so that their lives arent too horrible.
The point of government is not to make you happy. It is to make government as powerful as possible so that it can survive and rule forever.
People dont even deserve to be happy. They deserve to be oppressed so that they know their place.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Sounds like you are angry because North Korea is outproducing you :(
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well, its an opinion only in a sense of if you want power or not.
Government wants power, so government should do anything to get power if it is to realize its wish.
With power comes the ability for a person to fullfill his/her desires, and defend his/her self and create own history.
You may say: "I dont want power, I want to be weak and bullied"
Okay, that is your opinion. However, North Korean government does not want to be weak and bullied, but to have strong military ready to destroy anyone opposing to government.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
In 20-30 years, North Korean military and China's military will be so advanced, US will be a joke. This will make Kim's government eternal.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Government needs to have as much power as possible. The power is the goal. There will always be new enemies. Even if there are no outside enemies, its important to have strong military to prevent rebellions and make everyone fear you.
Government should do anything it can to stay in power forever.
Personally, I like the idea of military units being deployed all over the country to collect taxes to sustain themselves and the central governnent.
Government doesnt have to be run by 1 person, even tho hereditary monarchy is prefered over government of self electing parliament or hereditary parliament.
US is federation republic, which is sad.
Created:
Well, there are basically only 2 ways to run the economy:
1) Low taxes and low budget spending
This is basically when government only uses tax money to fund military and government, and protect basic rights. But without interfering in economy. Instead, letting free market to regulate itself. Taxes are kept as low as possible, and spending is kept equally low as taxes.
2) High taxes and high spending
High taxes is more of a Communist approach to the economy where government spends a lot of money on helping small buisnesses and poor individuals, also providing healthcare.
Its important to note that in both systems, money collected from taxes must be slightly greater than budget expenses.
Otherwise, you are forced to go into debt or print money, which is what the US has been doing for decades.
Both 1 and 2 have seen examples of historical success.
But 2 carries certain risk of government ruining the economy if government is stupid, so to most governments I would recommend 1.
1 has its own problems of overuse of resources and destroying nature and polluting the air by free market, but it is something the government can regulate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Actually, I would prefer to have more poverty if it meant stronger military.
I have pretty much abandoned my previous Communist views about equality, and adopted Songun system with military first policy and government having all the power.
I still call it Communist, even tho it has nothing to do with Communism described by Karl Marx.
Created: